Number needed to harm in the post-marketing safety evaluation: results for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 24, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 1259-1270

  Mendes, Diogo ^a,b   Alves, Carlos ^a,b   Batel Marques, Francisco ^a,b  

^a ASSOCIATION FOR INNOVATION AND BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ON LIGHT AND IMAGE AIBILI   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

benefit risk assessment; cardiovascular diseases; NNH; pharmacoepidemiology; pioglitazone; rosiglitazone; safety based drug withdrawals

Indexed keywords

2,4 THIAZOLIDINEDIONE DERIVATIVE; PIOGLITAZONE; ROSIGLITAZONE;

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; HEART INFARCTION; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MONOTHERAPY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

EID: 84977634385     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3874     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Wysowski DK, Swartz L. Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969–2002: the importance of reporting suspected reactions. Arch Intern Med 2005 Jun 27; 165(12): 1363–9.
2. Clarke A, Deeks JJ, Shakir SA. An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets. Drug Saf 2006; 29(2): 175–81.
3. Qureshi ZP, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Stevenson KB, Szeinbach SL. Market withdrawal of new molecular entities approved in the United States from 1980 to 2009. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011 Jul; 20(7): 772–7.
4. McNaughton R, Huet G, Shakir S. An investigation into drug products withdrawn from the EU market between 2002 and 2011 for safety reasons and the evidence used to support the decision-making. BMJ Open 2014 Jan 15; 4(1): e004221.
5. Vandenbroucke JP, Psaty BM. Benefits and risks of drug treatments: how to combine the best evidence on benefits with the best data about adverse effects. JAMA 2008 Nov 26; 300(20): 2417–9.
6. Hammad TA, Neyarapally GA, Iyasu S, Staffa JA, Dal PG. The future of population-based postmarket drug risk assessment: a regulator's perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013 Sep; 94(3): 349–58.
7. Lester J, Neyarapally GA, Lipowski E, Graham CF, Hall M, Dal PG. Evaluation of FDA safety-related drug label changes in 2010. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013 Mar; 22(3): 302–5.
8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD, USA, January 2014.
9. Alves C, Batel-Marques F, Macedo AF. A meta-analysis of serious adverse events reported with exenatide and liraglutide: acute pancreatitis and cancer. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2012 Nov; 98(2): 271–84.
10. Nixon R, Dierig C, Mt-Isa S, et al. A case study using the PrOACT-URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment. Biom J 2015 Jan 26. doi:10.1002/bimj.201300248. [Epub ahead of print].
11. European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Reflection paper on benefit-risk assessment methods in the context of the evaluation of marketing authorisation applications of medicinal products for human use (EMEA/CHMP/15404/2007). 2007. Available from http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2010/01/WC500069634.pdf, accessed April 02, 2015.
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Structured approach to benefit-risk assessment in drug regulatory decision-making. Draft patient drug user free act (PDUFA) I implementation plan. 2013. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM329758.pdf, accessed April 02, 2015.
13. Yuan Z, Levitan B, Berlin JA. Benefit-risk assessment: to quantify or not to quantify, that is the question. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011 Jun; 20(6): 653–6.
14. Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, Bian B, Lis Y, Raisch DW. A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy—report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. Value Health 2010 Aug; 13(5): 657–66.
15. Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Brasseur D, et al. The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013 Dec; 12(12): 907–16.
16. European Medicines Agency. Benefit–risk methodology project. Work package 3 report: field tests. 2011. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/09/WC500112088.pdf, accessed April 02, 2015.
17. Protect Consortium. Review of methodologies for benefit and risk assessment of medication. 2013. Available from: http://www.imi-protect.eu/documents/ShahruletalReviewofmethodologiesforbenefitandriskassessmentofmedicationMay2013.pdf, accessed April 02, 2015.
18. Mt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Wang N, et al. Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2014 Jul; 23(7): 667–78.
19. Laupacis A, Sackett D, Roberts R. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1728–33.
20. Cook D, Sackett D. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310: 452–4.
21. Citrome L, Ketter TA. When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed. Int J Clin Pract May 2013; 67(5): 407–411.
22. Walker S, McAuslane N, Liberti L, Leong J, Salek S. A universal framework for the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: is this the way forward? Therapeutic Innovation Regulatory Sci 2015; 49(1): 17–25.
23. European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency recommends suspension of Avandia. Avandamet and Avaglim—anti-diabetes medication to be taken off the market [Press release], 23 September 2010. Available from http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2010/09/news_detail_001119.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1, accessed 23 April, 2015.
24. U.S. FDA drug safety communication: FDA drug safety communication: updated risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to restrict access to rosiglitazone-containing medicines including Avandia, Avandamet, and Avandaryl [Press release], 18 May 2011. Available from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm255005.htm#Safety_Announcement, accessed 23 April 2015.
25. US FDA Briefing Document. Advisory committee meeting for NDA 21071 Avandia (rosiglitazone maleate) tablet. July 13 and 14, 2010. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM218493.pdf, accessed April 01, 2015.
26. US FDA Briefing Document. Readjudication of the rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes and regulation of glycemia in diabetes trial (RECORD). Joint meeting of the endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee and the drug safety and risk management advisory committee. June 5–6, 2013. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM354859.pdf, accessed April 02, 2015.
27. Loke YK, Kwok CS, Singh S. Comparative cardiovascular effects of thiazolidinediones: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 2011 Mar 17; 342: d1309.
28. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986 Sep; 7(3): 177–88.
29. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003 Sep 6; 327(7414): 557–60.
30. Straus SE, Glasziou P, Richardson WS, Haynes RB. Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach It. Churchill Livingstone: London, 2011; 77–97.
31. Look AHEAD Research Group, Wing RR, Bolin P, Brancati FLet al. Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2013 Jul 11; 369(2): 145–54.
32. European Medicines Agency. Assessment report for AVANDIA (procedure no. EMA/H/C/000268/A20/0075). 2010. Available from http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/000268/WC500100757.pdf, accessed April 23, 2015.
33. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2007 Jun 14; 356(24): 2457–71.
34. Psaty BM, Furberg CD. Rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med 2007 Jun 14; 356(24): 2522–4.
35. Krall RL. Cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone. Lancet 2007 Jun 16; 369(9578): 1995–6.
36. Nathan DM. Rosiglitazone and cardiotoxicity—weighing the evidence. N Engl J Med 2007 Jul 5; 357(1): 64–6.
37. Drazen JM, Morrissey S, Curfman GD. Rosiglitazone—continued uncertainty about safety. N Engl J Med 2007 Jul 5; 357(1): 63–4.
38. Cleland JG, Atkin SL. Thiazolidinediones, deadly sins, surrogates, and elephants. Lancet 2007 Sep 29; 370(9593): 1103–4.
39. [No authors listed]. Ensuring drug safety: lessons from the thiazolidinediones. Lancet. 2007 Sep 29;370(9593):1101.
40. Bloomgarden ZT. The Avandia debate. Diabetes Care 2007 Sep; 30(9): 2401–8.
41. Shuster JJ, Schatz DA. The rosigliazone meta-analysis: lessons for the future. Diabetes Care 2008 Mar; 31(3): e10.
42. US FDA Drug Safety Communication. FDA requires removal of some prescribing and dispensing restrictions for rosiglitazone-containing diabetes medicines [Press release], 25 November 2013. Available from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm376389.htm, accessed 23 April 2015.
43. Curtin F, Schulz P. Assessing the benefit: risk ratio of a drug—randomized and naturalistic evidence. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2011; 13(2): 183–90.
44. Citrome L. Relative vs. absolute measures of benefit and risk: what's the difference? Acta Psychiatr Scand 2010 Feb; 121(2): 94–102.
45. Baglin T. Communicating benefit and risk. Br J Haematol 2009 Jun; 146(1): 31–3.
46. Marx A, Bucher HC. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analysis: a word of caution. Evid Based Med 2003; 8: 36–37.
47. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Rosiglitazone revisited: an updated meta-analysis of risk for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. Arch Intern Med 2010 Jul 26; 170(14): 1191–1201.
48. McAlister FA. Commentary: relative treatment effects are consistent across the spectrum of underlying risks…usually. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 76–7.
49. Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy for type 2 diabetes (RECORD): a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2009 Jun 20; 373(9681): 2125–35.
50. Bourg CA, Phillips BB. Rosiglitazone, myocardial ischemic risk, and recent regulatory actions. Ann Pharmacother 2012 Feb; 46(2): 282–9.
51. Alves C, Marques FB, Macedo AF. Drug-safety alerts issued by regulatory authorities: usefulness of meta-analysis in predicting risks earlier. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2014 Jun; 70(6): 745–56.
52. Berlin J, Soledad Cepeda M, Kim C. The use of meta-analysis in pharmacoepidemiology. In Pharmacoepidemiology (5th edn), Strom B, Kimmel S, Hennessy S (eds.) edn. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, England, 2012; 723–756.
53. Vandenbroucke JP. What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment? CMAJ 2006 Feb 28; 174(5): 645–6.
54. Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 2004 May 22; 363(9422): 1728–31.
55. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004 Jan 3; 328(7430): 39–41.
56. Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ 2006 Feb 28; 174(5): 635–41.
57. van Staa TP, Smeeth L, Persson I, Parkinson J, Leufkens HG. Evaluating drug toxicity signals: is a hierarchical classification of evidence useful or a hindrance? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008 May; 17(5): 475–84.
58. Holden WL, Juhaeri J, Dai W. Benefit-risk analysis: a proposal using quantitative methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003 Oct-Nov; 12(7): 611–6.
59. Holden WL, Juhaeri J, Dai W. Benefit-risk analysis: examples using quantitative methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003 Dec; 12(8): 693–7.
60. Hallgreen CE, van den Ham HA, Mt-Isa S, et al. Benefit-risk assessment in a post-market setting: a case study integrating real-life experience into benefit-risk methodology. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2014 Sep; 23(9): 974–83.
61. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment of diabetes mellitus—draft. 2010. Available from http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129256.pdf, accessed April 02, 2015.
62. US Food and Drug Administration (a). Guidance for industry. Diabetes mellitus—evaluating cardiovascular risk in new antidiabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes. 2008. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071627.pdf?utm_campaign=Google2utm_source=fdaSearchutm_medium=websiteutm_term=guidance, accessed April 02, 2015.
63. US Food and Drug Administration (b). Guidance for industry. Diabetes mellitus: developing drugs and therapeutic biologics for treatment and prevention—draft. 2008. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm071624.pdf, accessed April 02, 2015.